Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - For purposes of making addition u/s 68, once assessee submits evidence, onus lies on Revenue to verify genuineness and creditworthiness of lender :ITAT

I-T - Since assessee did not to appear before Tribunal and there was no other evidence to take a contrary view, thus , order of CIT (A) in sustaining various additions is justified : ITAT

I-T - Since no material is found in course of search, thus addition made in order of assessment cannot be a subject matter of proceedings u/s 153A : ITAT

I-T - For purposes of being granted registration as a trust u/s 12A, an object beneficial to a section of public is an object of general public utility : ITAT

I-T- Since no interest bearing fund has been used for purpose of making advance, no occasion arises, therefore, for making any disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) : ITAT

I-T- AO after considering factual and legal position accepted claim of assessee, therefore it is not a case of lack of inquiry, thus, it cannot be said that assessment order passed in a routine and per functionary manner : ITAT

CX - Instead of availing refund of input service, appellant has availed the credit under Credit Rules for payment of output excise duty on excisable goods cleared from the factory, no reason found to deny the credit: CESTAT

ST - It is the settled position of law that a substantial right of a tax payer cannot be denied on mere procedural lapse: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-2139-HC-DEL-CUS

Manu Gupta Vs Pr. Addl. Director General, DRI

Cus - The petitioner is an individual, against whom a Look Out Circular had been issued - Pursuant to investigation, an SCN was issued to the petitioner, followed by two supplementary notices - The petitioner filed reply to SCN and corrigendums - The petitioner filed the present petition seeking that the LoC issued in his name, be stayed.

Held - The petitioner does not contest the SCNs, merely the Look Out Circular - The Revenue is aware of the residential and official premises of the petitioner - No summons were issued to the petitioner from any competent court - Besides, the petitioner has been cooperating in the investigation, as and when needed - Moreover, the Look Out Circular is valid for one year, upon completion of which the name of the subject is deemed to be automatically removed - In the present case, the period of one year has lapsed & therefore by deeming fiction, the name of the petitioner is automatically removed from the Look Out Circular, unless it was renewed, but which has not been pleaded by the Revenue - The petitioner also claimed to be in poor health - Considering these factors in totality, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim relief - Hence the operation, execution & implementation of the Look Out Circular is stayed, subject to fulfilment of certain terms - List on 24.12.2021: HC

- Case deferred: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-705-CESTAT-KOL

Jai Balaji Industries Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of sponge iron and allied products - Issue arises is as to whether loading services availed by appellant is eligible for credit - Credit has been denied merely on the ground that goods against which loading services have been availed have not been received by appellant in their factory - The goods in respect of which loading services have been availed have been duly exported outside the country - Even otherwise, in that case also, the appellant would have been eligible for claiming refund of input service under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 subject to compliance with the conditions prescribed therein - Instead of availing refund of input service, appellant has availed the credit under Cenvat Credit Rules for payment of output excise duty on excisable goods cleared from the factory - No reason found to deny the credit - In so far as the pleading on limitation is concerned, SCN has been issued in August 2016 by invoking extended period of limitation - Apart from the general aversion, there is no evidence to show that credit has been wrongly availed by way of fraud or suppression - Hence, the impugned demand is also barred by limitation and not sustainable on that count also: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2021-TIOL-704-CESTAT-BANG

Advanced Business And Healthcare Solutions India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - The appellant had made refund claims of unutilized cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR for short), read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) - Same was rejected on the ground that the appellant had carried forward the same into its Tran-1 Form of GST - It is the settled position of law that a substantial right of a tax payer cannot be denied on mere procedural lapse, which is reaffirmed by this very Bench in case of JMT Consultant Detailing Pvt. Ltd. 2020-TIOL-101-CESTAT-BANG - The authorities below have erred in rejecting the appellant's claim for refund for want of reversal of cenvat credit - The adjudicating authority should examine the appellant's claim for having effected the reversal now since the said authority had no benefit of this document which is available only now before this forum - Accordingly, matter is remanded to original authority who shall verify the claim of appellant as to the reversal of refund amount claimed along with the supporting documents and then pass a fresh order: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT